Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, etc. and using juvenile distractions to monkey around. Has anybody on any forum thread been so patient at explaining simple concepts to others as I have? How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?

Can you explain the crucial issue of your comprehensive theory for how the assassination transpired? There seems to be a consensus that you need to do that. You even have permission to use your opinion if you like.

 

[carlitos]

Maybe this is a result of Law and Order or CSI reruns always being on, the perception that there is some small forensic detail that can crack the big case. In the real world, means, motive, opportunity, a coherent theory that explains the fact, etc. seem to carry the day.

 

[HSienzant]

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, how the discussion has gone, etc. and using juvenile distractions to monkey around.

So stop with all that. We'd support in in your attempt.

Has anybody on any forum thread been so patient at explaining simple concepts to others as I have?

Hardly - Only everyone else. Explaining simple concepts to you.

How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?

Asked and answered -- in spades, including the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION you're imbedding in your argument about exactly how 'crucial' your arguments are (I count two different posters now pointing out this very problem to you concerning your post above).

No free fringe reset for you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, I've already explained the basic reasons why the autopsy doctors could have have removed the brain without also separating the "cowlick" area of the skull. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he the entry hole was still sitting there in the intact, empty cranium. Not as part of a skull fragment, but the intact rest of the skull. I think cowlick theorists should give an explanation for that.

Asked and answered. No free fringe reset for you.

And also some other sparse statements from the doctors indicate that after they had already reflected the scalp to remove the brain, they had to make another special incision to remove the area of the scalp around the entry wound. If the wound was in the cowlick area, the first big incision in the scalp would be enough to expose the entry wound.

The skull bone has two sides, an inside and an outside. The entry wound on the skull likewise has two aspects to it on the skull -- the interior aspect (the part of the wound next to the brain) and the exterior aspect (the part of the skull next to the scalp). Cutting down the scalp on both sides of the head to the level of the ears exposed the interior aspect of the entry wound when the scalp was peeled back, but because the skull bone was still adhering to the scalp, they couldn't see the exterior aspect until they cut the scalp away from the bone itself.

This too was explained to you in the past.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11887600&postcount=556
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888102&postcount=560

This pretense of yours that there is anything needing explaining is just that - pretense.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered. No free fringe reset for you.




The skull bone has two sides, an inside and an outside. The entry wound on the skull likewise has two aspects to it on the skull -- the interior aspect (the part of the wound next to the brain) and the exterior aspect (the part of the skull next to the scalp). Cutting down the scalp on both sides of the head to the level of the ears exposed the interior aspect of the entry wound when the scalp was peeled back, but because the skull bone was still adhering to the scalp, they couldn't see the exterior aspect until they cut the scalp away from the bone itself.

This too was explained to you in the past.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11887600&postcount=556
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11888102&postcount=560

This pretense of yours that there is anything needing explaining is just that - pretense.

Hank

That's not what Dr. Finck said, Dr. Finck specifically denied that, and repeatedly explained what happened in plain English, and any deviation from that is a figment of your imagination. Finck always said he could see the entry hole as an unimpeded perforation in the intact, empty skull.

 

[Axxman300]

That's not what Dr. Finck said, Dr. Finck specifically denied that, and repeatedly explained what happened in plain English, and any deviation from that is a figment of your imagination. Finck always said he could see the entry hole as an unimpeded perforation in the intact, empty skull.

In the deposition I linked to he said that the brain had been removed by the time he arrived. The flesh had been peeled back.

Humes said the brain was removed traditionally by using a bone saw.

So...

It is entirely possible, based on the available x-rays, to cut the skull while avoiding the entry point in the back. AS SEEN IN THE X-RAYS, THAT PART OF THE SKULL IS SHATTERED ENOUGH TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY TO REMOVE THE BRAIN THROUGH THE REMAINING SAWED OPEN SPACE, WHICH WOULD BE 80% CLEAR.

You haven't read a word of any of those depositions, and if you have you clearly do not understand them.

You've painted yourself into a corner so might as well paint your feet too.

 

[HSienzant]

That's not what Dr. Finck said, Dr. Finck specifically denied that, and repeatedly explained what happened in plain English, and any deviation from that is a figment of your imagination. Finck always said he could see the entry hole as an unimpeded perforation in the intact, empty skull.

No, he said exactly as I summarized. And he didn't say the skull was intact, he said it was extensively fractured. He even used a word you appear not to understand -- 'comminuted'.

Do you understand what that means?

You even previously argued the skull was so extensively fractured pieces were falling off... How does that translate in your world to 'intact'?

And, importantly, the area of the skull around the large defect was so fractured that pieces would naturally break off. Very little sawing of the skull was necessary. So since the X-rays show the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect, the cowlick area of the skull would have been among the pieces to naturally break off. Since Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the skull cavity was enlarged and the brain was removed yet could still examine the entry wound in the intact rest of the skull, this indicates that the entry wound was not on the upper cowlick area as theorized by the HSCA.

How does something that's extensively fractured and falling apart as it's handled also qualify as 'intact'? You contradict yourself with each new post and never even try to reconcile these contradictory claims.

See the links I generously provided above as well.

No free fringe reset for you.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

In the deposition I linked to he said that the brain had been removed by the time he arrived. The flesh had been peeled back.

Humes said the brain was removed traditionally by using a bone saw.

So...

It is entirely possible, based on the available x-rays, to cut the skull while avoiding the entry point in the back. AS SEEN IN THE X-RAYS, THAT PART OF THE SKULL IS SHATTERED ENOUGH TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY TO REMOVE THE BRAIN THROUGH THE REMAINING SAWED OPEN SPACE, WHICH WOULD BE 80% CLEAR.

You haven't read a word of any of those depositions, and if you have you clearly do not understand them.

You've painted yourself into a corner so might as well paint your feet too.

That sounds like pure nonsense, and it will remain pure nonsense unless you explain what you mean by skull bone being "flexible". Also, the area around the large defect was so brittle that pieces of bone naturally separated, they didn't have to do much sawing. The "cowlick" area of the skull had to be among the pieces separated.

 

[MicahJava]

No, he said exactly as I summarized. And he didn't say the skull was intact, he said it was extensively fractured. He even used a word you appear not to understand -- 'comminuted'.

Do you understand what that means?

Dr. Finck saw the entry in the intact rest of the skull, what was left after the skull cavity had been enlarged.

You even previously argued the skull was so extensively fractured pieces were falling off... How does that translate in your world to 'intact'?


How does something that's extensively fractured and falling apart as it's handled also qualify as 'intact'? You contradict yourself with each new post and never even try to reconcile these contradictory claims.

See the links I generously provided above as well.

No free fringe reset for you.

Hank

Um... Earth to Hank?

 

[Axxman300]

That sounds like pure nonsense, and it will remain pure nonsense unless you explain what you mean by skull bone being "flexible". Also, the area around the large defect was so brittle that pieces of bone naturally separated, they didn't have to do much sawing. The "cowlick" area of the skull had to be among the pieces separated.

You posted an x-ray that shows that nothing you just wrote is true.

The skull was not brittle, the skull was hit by a 6.5x52mm round traveling at 2,700 feet per second. Bone is not a ceramic, it is fibrous, and vascular, and while fracture is a medical term it is not 100% accurate to what happens when a bone breaks (while "Knitting" a fracture back together is a more accurate description).

Also, had you bothered to read the depositions you would know that the skull was sawed - EXCEPT WHERE THE SKULL WAS SHATTERED.

If you're not going to read first-hand testimony then why are you wasting your time?

 

[Axxman300]

Dr. Finck saw the entry in the intact rest of the skull, what was left after the skull cavity had been enlarged.

How does one enlarge a skull cavity?

Just wondering.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dr. Finck saw the entry in the intact rest of the skull, what was left after the skull cavity had been enlarged.




Um... Earth to Hank?

Why are you so utterly incapable of addressing the points that are actually raised? Why do you cower away from stating your opinion of how JFK was assassinated? I recall you saying something about balls earlier. What was it?

 

[abaddon]

That sounds like pure nonsense, and it will remain pure nonsense unless you explain what you mean by skull bone being "flexible". Also, the area around the large defect was so brittle that pieces of bone naturally separated, they didn't have to do much sawing. The "cowlick" area of the skull had to be among the pieces separated.

Uh, living bone IS flexible. And you just torpedoed your own argument by claiming that the skull was "so brittle" that sawing was not required for brain removal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That sounds like pure nonsense, and it will remain pure nonsense unless you explain what you mean by skull bone being "flexible".

MJ, you really should stop; this is getting embarrassing to watch. Read the quote you just posted; it doesn't say that the bone is flexible, it says that the shattering of the bone provided the necessary flexibility. The scalp, which would have been holding the shattered pieces of bone together, is what's flexible; that's beyond obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by ideology.

Dave

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Hank Sienzant, thanks for your reply.

I did some digging, and, several pages back, MJ again gets specific:

The autopsy report says the entry wound in the back of the head was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP. The location endorsed by the HSCA is 4-5 inches above the EOP.

So now we have two possible locations for the entry wound. Is either of these compatible with the suggestion of a shooter on a lower floor of the Book Depository?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank Sienzant, thanks for your reply.

I did some digging, and, several pages back, MJ again gets specific:



So now we have two possible locations for the entry wound. Is either of these compatible with the suggestion of a shooter on a lower floor of the Book Depository?

Given MJ thinks that JFK would have appeared "about the size of an ant" to LHO, it follows that there is no part of the back of his head, or back, that was not visible in the line of sight of the rifle.

Further more, his complaints about how destroyed around the entrance room the skull was, and the difficulties in explaining the brain damage he has posited, would both suggest a trauma wave deflecting the bullet and making an entry trajectory impossible to prove.

Ergo he will argue enough unknowable factors to allow him the space to posit an additional shot. However none of his quibbles mean LHO could not have taken the shot, nor negate that we have a known shooter responsible for all the bullets that we know were fired that day.

Best case scenario: he offers a less convincing narrative that does not suggests conspiracy without an act of faith towards the presence of a silenced rifle nobody can prove was there, or suggest was there based on any evidence.

 

[bknight]

Hank Sienzant, thanks for your reply.

I did some digging, and, several pages back, MJ again gets specific:



So now we have two possible locations for the entry wound. Is either of these compatible with the suggestion of a shooter on a lower floor of the Book Depository?

There aren't two possible BOH wound locations. The autopsy noted one and only one, the HSCA theorized a different location than the autopsy, without the ability to view the body, just images of the body. Also it theorized a 4th "shot" that has now been completely disproven.

 

[MicahJava]

MJ, you really should stop; this is getting embarrassing to watch. Read the quote you just posted; it doesn't say that the bone is flexible, it says that the shattering of the bone provided the necessary flexibility. The scalp, which would have been holding the shattered pieces of bone together, is what's flexible; that's beyond obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by ideology.

Dave

That is certainly not what Dr. Finck always attested to. So far it seems like there is no loophole to the brain removal problem, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the wound was low in the head where the autopsy doctors placed it.

 

[MicahJava]

Uh, living bone IS flexible. And you just torpedoed your own argument by claiming that the skull was "so brittle" that sawing was not required for brain removal.

Please no word play crap like that. Dr. Humes himself described the area around the large defect as "brittle".

 

[MicahJava]

Further more, his complaints about how destroyed around the entrance room the skull was, and the difficulties in explaining the brain damage he has posited, would both suggest a trauma wave deflecting the bullet and making an entry trajectory impossible to prove.

What?